Catastrophe’s Impact on Leaders’ Caring and Justice: Changes in Moral Reasoning
Orientation
Carl R. Oliver
Fielding Graduate University
Vision statements articulated by 7 national leaders before and after a catastrophe were examined to
identify post-catastrophe changes in moral reasoning orientation, a worldview that frames thinking about
moral conflicts and what factors deserve priority when resolving them. Moral reasoning orientation was
found in 95.2% of those vision statements and both caring and justice orientation always were present.
Gilligan’s (1993) linear model with caring at one pole and justice at the opposite pole emerged as a useful
model if holistic scoring is used and showed the vision statements usually were justice oriented and
became more justice oriented after a catastrophe. Holistic scoring results were supported by some
triangulating evidence.
Earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice (Shakespeare, 1597/1997, p. 311).
A catastrophe inherently creates an urgent challenge for leadership. Here, catastrophe is used to
describe a major crisis realized suddenly and so serious that the leader’s organization, or a
significant part of it, may not achieve fundamental goals or even survive. Confederate capture of
Fort Sumter challenged Abraham Lincoln. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor challenged Franklin
Roosevelt. Argentina’s attack on the Falkland Islands challenged Margaret Thatcher.
Vision statements, as a standard tool leaders use to focus organization members on
achieving a desired goal, may be especially significant when a catastrophe has occurred. A useful
research design might view the catastrophe as an intervention and measure its effect by
comparing vision statements the same leader articulated before and after the catastrophe.
Psychological theory predicts there will be measurable differences in those texts (Satterfield,
1998; Suedfeld & Bluck, 1988; Suedfeld & Tetlock, 1977; Wallace & Suedfeld, 1988; Winter &
Stewart, 1977).
Overt changes in the content of vision statements over time frequently are analyzed
publicly in the news media. A number of theories posit the existence and measurability of latent
characteristics such as moral reasoning stage, moral reasoning orientation, explanatory style, and
rumination. A common theme of such theories is that examination of latent characteristics
reveals important truths that otherwise might be overlooked and yields helpful insights into
human and organization behaviors (Post, Walker, & Winter, 2003). Theory-based examination of
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 1 Iss. 2, 2006, pp. 80-98
© 2006 School of Leadership Studies, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
81
latent characteristics may use structured content analysis to appropriately sample thought content
that leaders produced under particular conditions (Smith, 1992).
Moral Reasoning Orientation
This study focused on organization-level analysis of one particular latent characteristic of
the vision statement: its moral reasoning orientation. Moral reasoning orientation is an important
lens to use because it describes a worldview that frames thinking about moral conflicts and what
factors deserve priority when resolving them.
Gilligan drew attention to moral reasoning orientation in 1982. Piaget (1976, 1997) and
Kohlberg (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987) had based their research into moral reasoning development
stage on an assumption that moral reasoning orientation frames conflicts in terms of justice. The
considerations identified with justice included laws, standards, rules, principles, obligations,
duty, commitment, and fairness. Gilligan (1993) discovered a group of women she believed used
a different moral reasoning orientation: caring. The considerations identified with caring
included alleviating burdens and suffering, fostering the welfare of another, maintaining and
restoring personal relationships, interdependence, and avoiding conflict.
Gilligan (1993) demonstrated that which orientation is used, caring or justice, can lead to
different decisions and outcomes. Gilligan used as an example a classic situation devised by
Kohlberg that is known as the Heinz dilemma. Heinz’ wife has a terminal illness but a recently
developed drug might save her. The manufacturer’s price for the drug is cost of manufacture plus
a 900% profit, and that total is double the money Heinz was able to raise using his best efforts.
The manufacturer refuses to reduce his profit or let Heinz pay later. When framed as a justice
issue, this dilemma can give priority to life over property and give Heinz justification to steal the
unaffordable drug to save the life of his wife. Oppositely, when framed as a caring issue, this
dilemma can eschew theft and require seeking some way to buy the drug, some way to pay the
unaffordable price, because the circumstance of Heinz stealing, being caught, and going to jail
would create harm for the wife by making it impossible for Heinz to care for her over the long
term.
Lyons (1982) designed a procedure to identify moral considerations and categorize them
as justice or care (Gilligan, 1988; Gilligan & Attanucci, 1988). Johnston (1988) demonstrated
that adolescents of either gender could access either orientation, caring or justice, and could
switch between them. This study assumed that leaders are no different. They, too, can access
either caring or justice and switch between them. Which do real leaders’ vision statements
express when they face a real catastrophe?
Definitions and Considerations
Vision Statements
To qualify as a vision, a statement must (a) be accessible to substantially all organization
members or their designated representatives, (b) present an image of the future organization, and
(c) present an improvement more attractive than other perceived alternatives. Although other
criteria have been offered, they often prove unhelpful or sometimes wrong. For example,
“specific,” “realistic,” and “credible” are not valid criteria because a useful vision statement may
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
82
be quite the opposite: fuzzy, faith-based, values-based, belief-based, radical, bold, and
unconventional (Bass, 1998; Schein, 1992).
Level of Analysis
Since leaders’ statements may be influenced by other people, level of analysis is an
important consideration. This study focused on catastrophes and vision statements related to 7
pivotal national leaders who clearly have advisors and do not act alone (Basler, 1953; Bush,
2003; Campbell, 2003; Frum, 2003; Gelderman, 1997; Hughes, 2004). It is difficult to discern
precisely whether the advisors’ influence is large (Kennan & Hadley, 1986) or small (National
Archives and Records Administration, 2001). Presidents have been so deeply involved in the
preparation of their vision statements that observers opine that advisors cannot sneak words into
the president’s mouth. The usual presidential speech is prepared by 5 to 20 people and that
extensive group input means the speeches do not voice just personal ideas of the president but
instead represent at least the advisory group and some say the nation and its people (Medhurst,
2003). Eight other scholars provided evidence supporting that view in the same volume (Ritter &
Medhurst, 2003). Frum reported personal experience as one of George W. Bush’s speechwriters
and described a process designed intentionally to allow many people to contribute ideas and
words that are integrated into the coherent vision voiced by the president.
Pivotal leaders are formal leaders whose choices appear to set direction for their entire
organization. The literature recognizes that throughout history pivotal leaders who won
widespread fame relied on a team of supporters (O’Toole, Galbraith, & Lawler, 2003). Under
that condition, if analysis were attempted at the individual level to predict an individual leader’s
behavior or to interpret an individual leader’s personality, the influence of advisors and
consultants would be a confounding factor degrading interpretations and inferences. A fair
criticism would be, who is being analyzed—the leader or advisors and speechwriters? However,
if analysis is focused at the organization level and assumes the organization’s leadership is
composed of a formal leader working together with advisors and consultants, then the multiple
influences on vision statements are not a confounding factor but part of the integrated
phenomenon under study.
Shared Leadership
Analysis of leadership effected by multiple people, dispersed or shared leadership, found
organized expression beginning in the 1990s, although elements existed earlier in the literature
(Bryman, 1996; Pearce & Conger, 2003). One conceptual strength is recognition that even the
most pivotal leader—perhaps especially the most pivotal leader—is unlikely to act alone.
An unresolved issue relates to two practical aspects of distribution of power:
accountability and priority. With respect to accountability, Western culture tends to hold a single
person accountable for the actions of an organization no matter how leadership is shared
(O’Toole et al., 2003). With respect to priority, Locke (2003) opined that shared leadership
should be very fragile, if it even exists, because people at the top will disagree and decision
making will be paralyzed if no one has the final say.
As early as 1974, Stogdill addressed the distribution and sharing of leadership power. But
a focus on power may miss the point. Shared leadership is dynamic, an interactive influence
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
83
process, whereby people lead each other to achieve the organization’s goals (Pearce & Conger,
2003). That definition is silent on power; it is focused on interaction.
Human-Caused Catastrophes
This study focused only on human-caused catastrophes. Situational influences are widely
recognized to be mediators of human behavior and this study assumes it is important to
distinguish between catastrophes caused by nature and those caused by humans. While nature
does cause catastrophes, human-caused catastrophes seem to evoke qualitatively different
feelings. Nature seems not to be held culpable of wrongdoing in the way people who cause a
catastrophe are.
Unobtrusive Measures
Not every research method is suited to catastrophe research. Direct observation is
possible (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1956) but difficult because researchers are unlikely to
have adequate access to the leader under emergency conditions. Repeating catastrophes to
facilitate researcher access would be unconscionable. Covert simulations were attempted in the
past; researchers sought high reliability by using high-impact deceptions (Amato, 1983;
Aronson, 1992; Darley & Latané, 1968; Latané & Darley, 1968; Milgram, 1969), but today those
are unlikely to be approved by institutional research ethics boards. Direct observation,
interviews, surveys, and overt simulations all face criticism because results are influenced by
reactivity between the researcher and the participant. What people say and do when they know
they are research participants may not be what they actually do when living through a real
catastrophe.
Unobtrusive methods appear to be a good choice for catastrophe research (Webb,
Campbell, Schwartz, & Sechrest, 2000). For this study, content analysis of archival records
offered opportunity to obtain data untainted by interaction between the investigator and the
leader. This method also permits comparison of natural events across time and cultures
(Oettingen, 1995; Peterson, 1992; Schulman, Castellon, & Seligman, 1989; Seligman, 1998;
Webb et al., 2000). However, content analysis does not allow the control over variables that is
available under laboratory conditions, and it can be affected by investigator bias or fuzzy
interpretations. For those reasons, several procedural controls have been recommended,
including adhering to strict criteria to identify passages extracted for analysis, using multiple
raters to score the passages, keeping those raters blind to each other’s scoring and to study
outcomes, presenting passages to raters in random order, measuring intercoder reliability, and
seeking triangulating evidence (Smith, Feld, & Franz, 1992; Webb et al.; Winter, 2003).
Research Question
When real leaders face a real catastrophe, what do their vision statements express, caring
or justice? This study examined the vision statements of 7 pivotal national leaders to determine
how a real catastrophe affected those visions by using content analysis to detect changes in moral
reasoning orientation, a latent characteristic, that allow inferences about the effects of real-world
catastrophes on those visions and the worldview used to frame thinking about moral conflicts
and what factors deserve priority when resolving them. Three visions articulated before a
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
84
catastrophe were compared to three articulated afterward for consistency or changes in moral
reasoning orientation. The same vision statements were scored twice by different rater panels,
once holistically with forced choice between caring and justice, and once at proposition level
with caring and justice scored separately.
Because Lyons (1988) and Johnston (1988) found people using both caring and justice
orientations simultaneously, in this study both justice and caring orientations were expected
likely to appear. That seemed especially likely because, for these leaders operating at the national
level, the vision statements were likely to incorporate multiple advisors’ ideas (Gelderman, 1997;
Ritter & Medhurst, 2003; Suedfeld, Guttieri, & Tetlock, 2003; Winter, 2003). Since conditions
of stress affect the influence various people exert in a group (Janis, 1982), changes in moral
reasoning orientation in reaction to catastrophe also were expected. No prior research was
located with empirical data predicting the direction of that change. If the hypothesis to be tested
is based on the Piaget (1976, 1997) and Kohlberg (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987) assumption, moral
reasoning orientation will be expected to frame conflicts in terms of justice.
The hypothesis tested is that these leaders’ vision statements before a catastrophe will
show both justice and caring moral reasoning orientations and that their vision statements after a
catastrophe will show change and the direction will be toward more justice.
Method
Selecting Leaders and Texts
The 7 leaders were selected by identifying human-caused catastrophes with vision
statements leaders articulated before and after the catastrophe (Table 1). A practical constraint
was that archival vision statements may exist only for national leaders in the public sector. They
may not exist for other leaders for multiple reasons. Perhaps those leaders’ vision statements
were not publicly voiced or documented, or perhaps post-catastrophe vision statements were
avoided for legal reasons.
Table 1
Leaders and Catastrophes Selected for Study
Leader
Catastrophe
George W. Bush
Terrorists attacked the United States
Margaret Thatcher Argentina attacked the Falkland Islands
Golda Meir
Egypt and Syria attacked Israel
John F. Kennedy
Soviet Union deployed offensive missiles
and aircraft to Cuba
Franklin Roosevelt Japan attacked Pearl Harbor
Woodrow Wilson
Germany waged unrestricted submarine
warfare
Abraham Lincoln
Confederates captured Fort Sumter
Catastrophe Date
September 11, 2001
April 2, 1982
October 6, 1973
October 16, 1962
December 7, 1941
April 12, 1917
April 14, 1861
For each leader, an inventory identified prepared speech texts before and after the
catastrophe that are available from official or authoritative sources. While a reality is that
published texts exist in various forms that do not always match exactly, such as pre-delivery
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
85
news releases, speaking texts, as-delivered texts, and transcripts, the published texts from official
or authoritative sources bear a rebuttable presumption that they are substantially correct and a
foundation for the leader’s reputation.
Examination of the texts listed on each inventory identified those meeting the criteria for
a vision statement: accessible to substantially all organization members or their designated
representatives, providing an image of the future organization, and providing an improvement
more attractive than other perceived alternatives. Counting from the catastrophic event, the last
three vision statements before the catastrophe and the first three after it were identified. Care was
used to avoid subjective editing by rules of type, like whether the statements expressed national
direction or policy, or by rules related to topic, like whether they addressed defense or welfare,
war preparedness, or education improvements. This study examined each leader’s pattern of
actual vision statements of all types before and after a catastrophe. Each of the 7 leaders was
represented by 6 vision statements, for a total of 42 visions in all.
Scorable Extractions
A content analysis study of moral reasoning orientation first requires extraction of
scorable statements that strictly meet specified criteria. Following precedent that one researcher
do all extraction because the process is tedious and requires meticulous examination of a large
volume of text (Peterson, Schulman, Castellon, & Seligman, 1992), each vision statement was
examined at least four times for extractable passages. For moral reasoning orientation, Lyons
(1982) established extraction criteria. To be extractable, a text must contain: (a) a real-life moral
dilemma, (b) an asserted solution, and (c) an explanation of the dilemma or an evaluation of that
dilemma. Dilemma can further be split into two components: situation and conflict.
Extraction identified 115 scorable passages that were used for both Study 1 and Study 2.
What varied between the studies was the unit of coding. For Study 1, the 115 extracts were used
intact. They contained all three elements: a dilemma, an asserted solution, and an evaluation or
explanation. For Study 2, the 115 extracts were divided into 470 stand-alone propositions.
Usually these were one element: situation, or conflict, or solution, or evaluation. But sometimes
one proposition could be subdivided into several stand-alone sub-propositions and occasionally
solution and evaluation were inextricably intertwined.
Scoring
For presentation to raters, the 115 Study 1 extracts and the 470 Study 2 propositions were
randomly sequenced using numbers drawn from a table of random numbers. Raters were
instructed to score each extract by comparing content to a scoring aid showing considerations of
caring and justice moral reasoning orientations (Table 2).
For Study 1, raters performed forced choice scoring with five options: justice
(exclusively or overwhelmingly), justice dominates but caring appears, caring dominates but
justice appears, caring (exclusively or overwhelmingly), or no justice and no caring. For
analysis, those ratings were converted to numbers: + 2, + 1, - 1, - 2, or 0, respectively. After
scoring, the extracts were grouped by vision statement and their mean became the vision
statement’s score (Figure 1).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
86
Table 2
Considerations of Care and Justice
Considerations of Care
Alleviate burden/suffering, Foster welfare of
another, Maintain / restore interpersonal
relationships, Avoid interpersonal conflict,
Interdependence, Situation over principle,
Effects on others, Etc.
Considerations of Justice
Laws, Standards / rules / principles, Obligation
/ duty / commitment, Fairness, Others have
their own contexts, Principle over situation,
Effect on self, Etc.
For Study 2, raters scored each proposition twice, once for justice and once for caring. In
both cases raters had three options: clearly present, uncertain, and clearly not present. For
analysis, those ratings were converted to 2, 1, and 0, respectively; justice scores were assigned a
positive sign and caring scores were assigned a negative sign. After scoring, the propositions
were grouped by vision statement and their means, one for justice and one for caring, became the
vision statement’s scores (Figure 2).
Justice
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Unscorable
-0.50
Unscorable
Care
0.00
123 456 123 456 123 456 123 456 123 456 123 456 123 456
Lincoln
Wilson
Roosevelt
Kennedy
Meir
Thatcher
Bush
Catastrophes
Figure 1. Moral reasoning orientation scores of 42 vision statements based on holistic scoring by
raters who examined 115 scorable extracts in Study 1.
For both studies, students at California Lutheran University were employed as raters.
They were primarily undergraduates but two Study 1 raters were in masters programs. They
received orientation training and scored a number of practice texts to compare their scoring to
“expert” scores. The raters were blind to each other’s scoring and to study outcomes. They were
not told who said each scorable item, but inescapable content clues sometimes may have allowed
them to guess. [For example, who said, “Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
87
infamy . . .”? (Roosevelt, 1941/1950a).] Studies often delete such clues, but they were so vital to
these vision statements that deletion was impossible here.
Justice
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Unscorable
Unscorable
Care
0.00
-0.50
123 456 123 456 123 456 123 456 123 456 123 456 123 456
Lincoln
Wilson
Roosevelt
Kennedy
Meir
Thatcher
Bush
Catastrophes
Dominant Orientation
Lesser Orientation
Figure 2. Moral reasoning orientation scores of 42 vision statements based on proposition
scoring by raters who examined 470 scorable items in Study 2.
For Study 1, a panel of nine raters convened to score the 115 extracts in a one-session
classroom environment. Each statement was scored holistically and independently by three of the
raters. For Study 2, a panel of six raters scored the 470 propositions twice, once for the presence
of caring and separately for the presence of justice. Each proposition was scored by all six raters,
who worked independently at times and places of their own choosing over a period of several
weeks.
Results
Intercoder reliability was good. For Study 1, Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951), α = .90
when raters scored holistically and, for Study 2, α = .95 for caring and α = .97 for justice when
raters scored them independently. While no measure of interrater agreement has won universal
support (Jones, Johnson, Butler, & Main, 1983), including alternatives such as percent
agreement, Pearson’s r, and Cohen’s kappa (Lombard, Snyder-Duch, & Bracken, 2004;
Uebersax, 2002), Cronbach’s alpha is an appropriate measure because an alpha approaching 1
indicates all raters applied scoring standards consistently and scores differed because raters’
opinions differed (Jones et al.; SPSS, 1999). Cronbach’s alpha also was adopted for this study for
consistency with a larger, on-going study, of which this research is a part, and consistency with
similar research previously completed by other investigators (Ballard & Suedfeld, 1988;
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
88
Schulman et al., 1989; Zullow, Oettingen, Peterson, & Seligman, 1988; Zullow & Seligman,
1990). Cronbach’s alpha effectively measures how raters’ scores co-vary (the ratio of inter-item
covariance to the average item variance) and mathematically is equivalent to the average of all
split-half estimates of reliability.
Cronbach’s alpha does not measure rater accuracy or the reliability of raters’ judgments.
Questions of that sort must be answered by examining relationships between ratings and external
events, the role of triangulating evidence (Jones et al., 1983).
Moral reasoning orientation was found in 95.2% of the vision statements. Of the 42
vision statements, only 2 had no content meeting the criteria to be extracted for moral reasoning
orientation. They were John Kennedy’s fifth vision statement, which lacked a real-life moral
dilemma, and Golda Meir’s fourth vision statement, which lacked an asserted solution.
Study 1
Whether Study 1 scores might be random was tested using a one-sample t test that
compared the mean score of the actual single sample population to the mean score of a
hypothesized random population and showed they are statistically different at the .01 level (p <
.0005). The consolidated mean of Study 1 scores was 0.75, with a standard deviation of 0.82 and
a 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.60 to 0.90. Overall, justice orientation dominated the
40 visions. However, raters scored caring dominant in 7 visions, a variation significant at the .01
level (p = .008). Those visions’ consolidated mean was -0.62, with a standard deviation of 0.42.
Comparing Visions 3 and 4 for each leader, the visions immediately before and after the
catastrophe, showed a norm and a deviation. The norm: Five leaders (71.4%) showed an increase
in justice orientation after a catastrophe (Meir excluded because Vision 4 was unscorable). A
paired comparison t test, used to compare scores before and after the catastrophe, showed the
change was significant at the .05 level (p = .032). The deviation: Margaret Thatcher showed an
increase toward caring orientation, a change statistically significant because it was 0.37 and
greater than the 95% confidence interval for the 7-leader dataset of 0.30.
Comparing Visions 1-3 to Visions 4-6, all visions before and all visions after the
catastrophe, similarly showed a norm, a deviation, and an anomaly. The norm: Six leaders
(85.7%) showed an increase in justice orientation after a catastrophe. A paired-comparison t test,
comparing scores before and after the catastrophe, showed the change was significant at the .01
level (p = .004). The deviation: Woodrow Wilson showed an increase toward caring orientation
of 1.19, statistically significant because it is greater than the 95% confidence interval for the 7leader dataset of 0.82. The anomaly: George W. Bush changed dramatically from caring to
justice. Comparing Bush’s Visions 1-3 to his Visions 4-6 showed change toward justice
significant at the .05 level (p = .036). From Vision 3 to 4 alone, his moral reasoning orientation
increased toward justice by 0.5, statistically significant because it is greater than the 99%
confidence interval for the 7-leader dataset of 0.43.
One possible explanation of the norms and deviations is that they indicate framing of
vision statements to garner followers’ support. No direct test of the explanation is available in the
data. Triangulating evidence from Frum is that advisors urged George Bush to change his vision
statements after Vision 4 when a poll showed only moderate trust. A poll after Vision 5 showed
high trust (Frum, 2003).
For both studies, the number of items (extracts or propositions) scored for each vision
was tallied so a paired-comparison t test could be used to evaluate whether variability in vision
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
89
scores was due largely to variability in the number of scorable items composing each vision.
Restated, were the scores for visions containing many scorable items significantly different from
the scores for visions containing only a few scorable items? The paired-comparison t test
determined the statistical difference. Using p less than or equal to .05 as the standard, this test of
Study 1 data showed variability in scores was not due to variability in the number of scorable
items. Of the 40 scorable vision statements, 13 had fewer than two extractions, 15 had more than
two, and the 12 with exactly two extractions could be split chronologically to add the first 7 to
the low extractions group and the last 5 to the high extractions group. The paired-comparison t
test for that split showed p = .873, so the difference between the low and high extraction groups
was not statistically significant.
Generally, these American presidents showed considerable caring orientation even when
justice dominated their visions. The two non-American prime ministers, Meir and Thatcher,
showed higher justice orientation. One possible explanation is that the Presidents’ environment
called for a “presentation” style of speaking but Meir and Thatcher both spoke primarily in a
parliamentary forum, perhaps using a discussion or debating style.
Another explanation might be image setting. Meir and Thatcher might have preferred the
justice orientation in belief that it better created an image of invulnerability and powerful
command. Such belief could be based on political experience, on antipathy toward gender
stereotypes, or on advice from consultants. Triangulating information supporting the imagesetting explanation included Bush’s anomaly, his switch from caring to justice after 9/11 when
Frum (2003) said advisors urged a change in his image, and biographer Campbell’s (2003)
comment that before Argentina attacked the Falkland Islands Thatcher already had taught the
public to view her as the Iron Lady resolutely defending British interests and pride.
Study 2
One-sample t tests were conducted to determine if the Study 2 means, for caring and for
justice, based on 470 propositions might be random. Means for the actual single sample
population were compared to mean scores for a hypothesized random population; they were
statistically different at the .01 level (p < .0005). For caring orientation, the consolidated mean
was -1.28, with a standard deviation of 0.21, and a 95% confidence interval ranging from -1.22
to -1.35. For justice orientation, the consolidated mean was 1.28, with a standard deviation of
0.13, and a 95% confidence interval ranging from 1.24 to 1.32.
Overall, Study 2 data showed no statistically significant change when Vision 3 was
compared to Vision 4 or when Visions 1-3 were compared to Visions 4-6. Dominant score was
calculated for each vision by subtracting the caring score from the justice score. Whether the
dominant scores might be random was tested using a one-sample t test that compared the mean
of the dominant scores to the mean score of a hypothesized random population. This test showed
the means are not statistically different (p = .414) and therefore the dominant scores appeared
random. Likewise, a paired-comparison t test, comparing the dominant scores before and after
the catastrophe, showed no statistically significant change when Vision 3 was compared to
Vision 4 (p = .077), or when Visions 1-3 were compared to Visions 4-6 (p = .321).
However, three specific changes in the Study 2 data were statistically significant at the
.05 level. Lincoln and Roosevelt showed decreases in the number of propositions scored caring
from Vision 3 to Vision 4 (p = .022); corresponding, Study 1 holistic scoring reported justice
orientation prevailed and became stronger. In contrast, Bush showed an increase in the number
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
90
of propositions scored caring from Vision 3 to Vision 4, a change of 0.18 that exceeded the 95%
confidence interval (0.13). For Bush, Study 1 holistic scoring reported caring prevailed and
became weaker, implying the holistic scorers based their judgment on something other than the
quantity of caring propositions.
Study 2 found a correlation of .34 between caring and justice scores. Study 2 dominant
scores showed a correlation to Study 1 scores of .51. Effect size, as a power analysis to quantify
the impact of a particular intervention, showed the catastrophe caused a large effect (d = 1.02) in
Study 1 when Vision 3 was compared to Vision 4. The Study 2 dominant scores for the same
visions showed a medium effect (d = 0.71).
Discussion
Catastrophe’s Impact on Leaders’ Caring and Justice
How did these seven human-caused catastrophes, when viewed as “interventions,” affect
the moral reasoning orientation of these 7 leaders’ vision statements? The data generally
supported the tested hypothesis that these leaders’ vision statements before a catastrophe would
show both justice and caring moral reasoning orientations and that their vision statements after a
catastrophe would show change and the direction would be toward more justice. But the data
also showed deviations that warrant explanation.
Study 1 showed that Gilligan’s (1993) linear model, with caring at one pole and justice at
the opposite pole, emerged as useful for vision statement analysis if raters have opportunity to
holistically score the extracts and to judge what points deserve emphasis.
Raters’ Study 1 results are consistent with overt content of the texts. With respect to text
raters scored caring, for example, Lincoln’s (1861/1953) first vision statement was made at an
early stop on his train trip to be inaugurated in Washington, DC. He praised the political parties
for uniting to greet him in Cincinnati. He hoped threatening national difficulties would simply
pass away. He spoke of intent to leave citizens alone and to treat people as equals with good
hearts. Those are concepts of the caring orientation. Woodrow Wilson’s (1917/1983c) sixth
speech, also scored caring, was unusual in focusing on Flag Day, a holiday Wilson first
proclaimed for national celebration. Wilson already had committed the United States to fight in
World War I and in this vision he spoke of the nation’s young men about to carry the flag into
battle. Wilson said the nation was forced into war, but instead of arguing for revenge and justice
he argued for honor, freedom, self-government, and making the world safe for all people who
live upon it. Those are caring concepts. Franklin Roosevelt’s (1941/1950b) sixth vision
celebrated the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. His nation was fighting
World War II to preserve the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which are caring
concepts.
Similarly, overt content showed justice themes in visions raters scored justice. Wilson’s
(1917/1983a) first vision expressed outrage at the injustice of German submarines sinking the
steamer Sussex, an attack that killed several U.S. citizens, and demanded that Germany abide by
the rules of international law and the universal dictates of humanity, which are justice concepts.
Wilson’s (1917/1983b) second vision sought formal authority and power from Congress to
remain a legally neutral nation but to supply merchant ships with arms for their self-defense, all
justice concepts. Roosevelt’s (1941/1950a) fourth speech, following Japan’s attack on Pearl
Harbor, presented a justice view that protested Japan’s premeditated invasion and committed the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
91
United States to prevail in absolute victory so the same form of treachery never again would
endanger the nation.
Frum (2003) provided evidence triangulating the change from caring to justice
orientation that raters saw in George Bush’s vision statements. Bush’s (2001a) first three vision
statements were part of a series of brief, pre-recorded Saturday morning radio addresses to the
nation. These advocated social welfare and education reforms. The fourth vision statement
immediately followed and addressed the 9/11 terror attacks, praised responses to the emergency,
and promised reaction. Frum attributed the fourth statement principally to Bush’s senior
communication advisor, Karen Hughes, saying she discarded and replaced words others had
drafted. Frum also criticized the caring, compassionate tone of that fourth vision statement and
wished it had been a war speech, justice oriented, and recognizing Americans were victims of a
massacre and were ready to go to war against everyone connected to the attack. Frum said such
criticism caused Hughes to back away from drafting Bush’s (2001b) Vision 5, the September 20
address to a joint session of Congress and to the nation, which was the first of his clearly justiceoriented visions. Michael Gerson chaired the drafting of that speech. The change in moral
reasoning orientation coincided with an increase in popular support. A poll after 9/11 showed
about half the country felt Bush could cope with the attacks. A poll after the September 20
address showed what Frum characterized as a level of trust never before achieved by any leader
in American history. Bush’s sixth vision statement, two days later, focused on overcoming the
nation’s economic plunge and Frum did not report who influenced it.
What emerged from Study 2 with clarity is confirmation that these raters saw both caring
and justice in every vision statement when they were required to score those characteristics
separately and examine every component of each vision extract. That scoring procedure
prevented raters from applying qualitative human judgment about what deserved emphasis and
instead applied a quantitative measure, mechanical counting of the number of elements in each
category. Although speakers and writers sometimes say they emphasized a point by addressing it
at length, the lack of high correlation between Study 1 and Study 2 results showed differences in
sensemaking. The Study 1 results, which had some support from triangulating evidence,
indicated these raters were able to use holistic judgments to make sense of visions and that using
mechanical length or frequency, a procedure sometimes used in previous research (Lyons, 1988),
did not always yield corresponding outcomes, a reality others also have observed (Jones et al.,
1983; Lombard et al., 2004; Winter & Stewart, 1977).
While early research positioned justice and caring as if they were opposite ends of a
single, linear scale (Johnston, 1988; Lyons, 1982), a meta-analysis by Jaffee and Hyde (2000)
found some research measured caring and justice independently, which would allow moral
reasoning orientation to be scaled in two dimensions. Liddell (1990) did measure them
independently, concluded her instrument measured two different constructs, but did not report
the scores plotted on a two-dimensional chart. This study explored two-dimensional plots but
found them unproductive. Raters’ holistic judgments as to which orientation prevailed were more
useful. This outcome is consistent with Jaffee and Hyde’s opinion that a useful direction for
research would be to focus on how individuals integrate justice and caring and determine which
is the right basis for action.
Generally, the vision statements of these leaders, when facing these catastrophes,
changed toward increased justice orientation. The two exceptions, the visions expressed by
Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Thatcher, may be explainable. Both remained predominantly
justice oriented, but Wilson’s framed going to war in Europe as a service to mankind and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
92
Thatcher’s framed going to war in the Falkland Islands as a service to Falkland Islanders, people
who deserved self-determination. For both Wilson and Thatcher, the issue was not framed as
defense of the homeland from overt attack (the issue for Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Meir, and
Bush), which would be a justice cause, but enhancement of freedom for other, distant people, a
caring cause.
Justice versus Caring Moral Reasoning Orientations
When Gilligan (1993) documented the existence of caring orientation, she asked if
Kohlberg’s system for scoring moral reasoning stage was flawed by its reliance solely on justice
orientation and its exclusion of caring orientation. Kohlberg argued his system was not flawed
because even if dilemmas were presented as justice issues people could choose to resolve them
by using caring orientation (Colby, Kohlberg, & Kauffman, 1987). But this study’s data
reinforce Gilligan’s question. The Study 2 data on 40 visions indicated these 7 leaders always
used both caring and justice considerations and measuring just one of the perspectives did not
yield results that matched the Study 1 holistic judgments. Moreover, the Study 1 data showed
that Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Bush all articulated visions that raters scored as
predominantly caring. Thus, caring emerged as both a frequent characteristic and an influential
one, supporting Gilligan’s position that reliance solely on justice orientation could yield flawed
results.
Although 2 of the 7 leaders were women, Meir and Thatcher, the organization level of
analysis used for this study means the outcomes contribute nothing to the idea originally raised
by Gilligan (1993) that women may prefer the caring and men may prefer the justice orientation.
The conservative view adopted here is that these organization-level vision statements were
dynamically influenced by multiple advisors as part of a shared leadership process, so both men
and women may have had significant input that shaped the vision statements.
Outliers
Two of the leader statements that qualified as visions contained no text meeting the
criteria to be extracted for moral reasoning orientation scoring. The first was Kennedy’s fifth
vision, which followed so closely after his fourth vision that it might be seen as an auxiliary
supplementing and assuming the listener still remembered the fourth vision. In Vision 4,
Kennedy (1962a) announced discovery of offensive missile sites being prepared on Cuba and
intention to stop that. In Vision 5, Kennedy (1962b) announced evidence that the missile bases
were being dismantled and he presented no moral dilemma. The second vision lacking text
qualified for extraction for moral reasoning orientation scoring was Meir’s (1973) fourth vision.
It was a broadcast to her nation that announced an attack on Israel by Egypt and Syria, asserting
that defense forces were beating back the assault but presented no explanation or resolution of
the dilemma, possibly assuming that listeners’ patriotism would provide them all the explanation
they required.
Conclusions
Results clearly showed these raters, when allowed opportunity to judge holistically as in
Study 1, appeared to interpret what vision elements warranted emphasis even when the vision
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
93
statement gave other elements more space, time, or frequency of mention. Do organization
members interpret their leaders’ visions the same way? It is a testable research question, and the
answer could influence leaders who, today, sometimes say they believed they emphasized a point
by speaking on it at length or speaking about it frequently.
It is interesting that these raters found in Study 2 that all 40 of the scorable visions
included both justice and caring elements. This is consistent with previous research that found
both genders could access both justice and caring and switch between them and found people
using both orientations simultaneously. It also is consistent with the theory that shared leadership
is a dynamic, interactive influence process allowing multiple people to lead each other to achieve
the organization’s goals. That concept assumes multiple people will express multiple viewpoints
that will influence others in the leadership group and be accommodated in visions articulated by
the formal leader. Frum’s observation of Karen Hughes’ withdrawal from influencing Bush’s
vision statements at the same time this study measured a change in those visions from caring to
justice moral reasoning orientation suggests the shared leadership dynamic was real in that
situation and also that it potentially has important effect on leadership outcomes. Left for future
research is the question of when is it beneficial for a vision statement to be caring and when is it
better oriented toward justice?
A unifying perspective from organizational systems theory recognizes levers as a
mechanism allowing a small effort by the leader to achieve a large effect on the organization. A
vision statement can be seen as a standard tool that leaders intend to have exactly that effect.
When visions change toward more caring or more justice, the reason might be reactive or
proactive. A reactive rationale is that the situation influenced how the leaders framed their vision
statements. A proactive rationale, drawing on the concept of systems levers, is that the leaders
sought to influence the situation by choosing how to frame their vision statements, using them as
a lever with large effect on their organization.
The data here confirmed the hypothesis that both caring and justice moral reasoning
orientations appeared in these vision statements by these leaders before a catastrophe. The data
confirmed that change occurred after a catastrophe and showed the change usually was toward
increased justice with several clear exceptions that showed change toward increased caring.
These measurements perhaps reveal a leadership lever in action.
About the Author
Dr. Carl R. Oliver received his Ph.D. from the School of Human and Organization
Development, Fielding Graduate University. His research interests include positive organization
development and development of ethics in complex adaptive systems.
Email: [email protected]
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
94
References
Amato, P. R. (1983). Helping behavior in urban and rural environments: Field studies based on a
taxonomic organization of helping episodes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45(3), 571-586.
Aronson, E. (1992). The return of the repressed: Dissonance theory makes a comeback.
Psychological Inquiry, 3(4), 303-311.
Ballard, E. J., & Suedfeld, P. (1988). Performance ratings of Canadian prime ministers:
Individual and situational factors. Political Psychology, 9(2), 291-302.
Basler, R. P. (1953). The collected works of Abraham Lincoln (Vols. 4-5). New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bryman, A. (1996). Leadership in organizations. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord,
Handbook of organization studies (pp. 276-292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bush, G. W. (2001a, September 11). Statement by the president in his address to the nation.
Retrieved October 27, 2002, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news
Bush, G. W. (2001b, September 20). Address to a joint session of Congress and the American
people. Retrieved October 27, 2002, from http://www.whitehouse
.gov/news/releases/2001/09
Bush, G. W. (2003). President Bush discusses top priorities for the U.S.: Press conference of the
president. Retrieved November 29, 2003, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news
Campbell, J. (2003). Margaret Thatcher: Vol. 2. The iron lady. London: Jonathan Cape.
Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment: Theoretical foundations
and research validation (Vol. 1). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., & Kauffman, K. (1987). Theoretical introduction to the measurement of
moral judgment. In A. Colby & L. Kohlberg, The measurement of moral judgment:
Theoretical foundations and research validation (Vol. 1, pp. 1-61). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16(3), 297-334.
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of
responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377-383.
Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Frum, D. (2003). The right man: The surprise presidency of George W. Bush. New York:
Random House.
Gelderman, C. (1997). All the presidents' words: The bully pulpit and the creation of the virtual
presidency. New York: Walker.
Gilligan, C. (1988). Preface. In C. Gillian, J. V. Ward, & J. M. Taylor, Mapping the moral
domain (pp. i-v). Cambridge, MA: Center for the Study of Gender, Education and Human
Development, Harvard University Graduate School of Education.
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
95
Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J. (1988). Two moral orientations. In C. Gillian, J. V. Ward, & J. M.
Taylor, Mapping the moral domain (pp. 73-86). Cambridge, MA: Center for the Study of
Gender, Education and Human Development, Harvard University Graduate School of
Education.
Hughes, K. (2004). Ten minutes from normal. New York: Viking.
Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703-726.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jones, A. P., Johnson, L. A., Butler, M. C., & Main, D. S. (1983). Apples and oranges: An
empirical comparison of commonly used indices of interrater agreement. Academy of
Management Journal, 26(3), 507-519.
Johnston, D. K. (1988). Adolescents’ solutions to dilemmas in fables: Two moral orientations –
Two problem solving strategies. In C. Gilligan, J. V. Ward, & J. M. Taylor (Eds.),
Mapping the moral domain (pp. 49-71). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Kennan, N., & Hadley, M. (1986). The creation of political leaders in the context of American
politics in the 1970s and 1980s. In C. F. Graumann & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Changing
conceptions of leadership (pp. 145-169). New York: Springer Verlag.
Kennedy, J. F. (1962a, October 22). Radio and television report to the American people on the
Soviet arms buildup in Cuba. In Office of the Federal Register, Public papers of the
presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy (Vol. 1962, pp. 806-809). Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Kennedy, J. F. (1962b, November 2). Radio and television remarks on the dismantling of Soviet
missile bases in Cuba. In Office of the Federal Register, Public papers of the presidents
of the United States: John F. Kennedy (Vol. 1962, p. 821). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215-221.
Liddell, D. L. (1990). Measure of moral orientation: Construction of an objective instrument
measuring care and justice, with an investigation of gender differences. Dissertation
Abstracts International 51 (11), 5626B. (UMI No. AAT9109093)
Lincoln, A. (1953). Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio. In R. P. Basler (Ed.), The collected works of
Abraham Lincoln (Vol. 4, pp. 197-200). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
(Original work published February 12, 1861)
Locke, E. A. (2003). Leadership: Starting at the top. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.),
Shared leadership (pp. 271-284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2004). Practical resources for assessing and
reporting intercoder reliability in content analysis research projects. Retrieved April 19,
2004, from Temple University Web site: http://www.temple.edu/mmc/reliability/
Lyons, N. P. (1982). Conceptions of self and morality and modes of moral choice: Identifying
justice and care in judgments of actual moral dilemmas. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Lyons, N. P. (1988). Two perspectives: On self, relationships, and morality. In C. Gilligan, J. V.
Ward, & J. M. Taylor (Eds.), Mapping the moral domain (pp. 21-48). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
96
Medhurst, M. J. (2003). Presidential speechwriting: Ten myths that plague modern scholarship.
In K. Ritter & M. J. Medhurst (Eds.), Presidential speechwriting: From the new deal to
the Reagan revolution and beyond (pp. 3-19). College Station, TX: Texas A&M
University Press.
Meir, G. (1973, October 6). Broadcast to the nation [Radio broadcast]. Retrieved March 31,
2003, from http://www.mfa.gov.il
Milgram, S. (1969). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.
National Archives and Records Administration. (2001). Our heritage in documents: FDR’s “day
of infamy” speech: Crafting a call to arms. Prologue: Quarterly of the National Archives
and Records Administration, 33(4). Retrieved March 30, 2002, from http://www.nara
.gov/publications/prologue/infamy.html. Website changed to http://www. archives.gov
/publications/prologue/winter_2001_crafting_day_of_infamy_speech.html
Oettingen, G. (1995). Explanatory styles in the context of culture. In G. M. Buchanan & M. E. P.
Seligman (Eds.), Explanatory style (pp. 209-224). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
O'Toole, J., Galbraith, J., & Lawler, E. E., III. (2003). The promise and pitfalls of shared
leadership: When two (or more) heads are better than one. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger
(Eds.), Shared leadership (pp. 250-267). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of
shared leadership. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger, (Eds.), Shared leadership (pp. 1-18).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peterson, C. (1992). Explanatory style. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and personality:
Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 376-382). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Peterson, C., Schulman, P., Castellon, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1992). The explanatory style
scoring manual. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic
content analysis (pp. 383-400). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Piaget, J. (1976). The grasp of consciousness: Action and concept in the young child. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Piaget, J. (1997). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.
Post, J., Walker, S., & Winter, D. (2003). Profiling political leaders: An introduction. In J. Post
(Ed.), The psychological assessment of political leaders (pp. 1-7). Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Ritter, K., & Medhurst, M. J. (Eds.). (2003). Presidential speechwriting: From the new deal to
the Reagan revolution and beyond. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
Roosevelt, F. D. (1950a). Address to the Congress asking that a state of war be declared between
the United States and Japan. In S. I. Rosenman (Ed.), The public papers and addresses of
Franklin D. Roosevelt: 1941 vol. (pp. 514-516). New York: Harper & Brothers. (Original
work published December 8, 1941)
Roosevelt, F. D. (1950b). Radio address commemorating the 150th anniversary of the ratification
of the Bill of Rights. In S. I. Rosenman (Ed.), The public papers and addresses of
Franklin D. Roosevelt: 1941 vol. (pp. 554-556). New York: Harper & Brothers. (Original
work published December 15, 1941)
Satterfield, J. M. (1998). Cognitive-affective states predict military and political aggression and
risk taking: A content analysis of Churchill, Hitler, Roosevelt, and Stalin. Journal of
Conflict Resolution, 42(6), 667-690.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
97
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Schulman, P., Castellon, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1989). Assessing explanatory style: The
content analysis of verbatim explanations and the attributional style questionnaire.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 27(5), 505-512.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. New
York: Pocket Books.
Shakespeare, W. (1997). The merchant of Venice. In G. B. Evans, The Riverside Shakespeare
(2nd ed.): The complete works (pp. 288-319). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (Original work
published circa 1597)
Smith, C. P. (Ed.). (1992). Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, C. P., Feld, S. C., & Franz, C. E. (1992). Methodological considerations: Steps in
research employing content analysis systems. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and
personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 515-536). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
SPSS. (1999). SPSS base 10.0 applications guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York:
Free Press.
Suedfeld, P., & Bluck, S. (1988). Changes in integrative complexity prior to surprise attacks.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32(4), 626-635.
Suedfeld, P., Guttieri, K., & Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Assessing integrative complexity at a
distance: Archival analyses of thinking and decision making. In J. M. Post (Ed.), The
psychological assessment of political leaders (pp. 246-270). Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan Press.
Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. (1977). Integrative complexity of communications in international
crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21(1), 169-184.
Uebersax, J. (2002). Kappa coefficients. Retrieved March 25, 2004, from
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/kappa.htm
Wallace, M. D., & Suedfeld, P. (1988). Leadership performance in crisis: The longevitycomplexity link. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 439-451.
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (2000). Unobtrusive measures
(Rev. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wilson, W. (1983a). An address to a joint session of Congress. In A. S. Link (Ed.), The papers of
Woodrow Wilson (Vol. 41, pp. 108-112). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
(Original work published February 13, 1917)
Wilson, W. (1983b). An address to a joint session of Congress. In A. S. Link (Ed.), The papers of
Woodrow Wilson (Vol. 41, pp. 283-287). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
(Original work published February 26, 1917)
Wilson, W. (1983c). A Flag Day address. In A. S. Link (Ed.), The papers of Woodrow Wilson
(Vol. 42, pp. 498-504). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work
published June 14, 1917)
Winter, D. G. (2003). Measuring the motives of political actors at a distance. In J. M. Post (Ed.),
The psychological assessment of political leaders (pp. 153-177). Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES
98
Winter, D. G., & Stewart, A. J. (1977). Content analysis as a technique for assessing political
leaders. In M. G. Hermann (Ed.), A psychological examination of political leaders (pp.
27-61). New York: Free Press.
Zullow, H. M., Oettingen, G., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1988). Pessimistic
explanatory style in the historical record: CAVing LBJ, presidential candidates, and East
virus West Berlin. American Psychologist, 43(9), 673-682.
Zullow, H. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Pessimistic rumination predicts defeat of
presidential candidates, 1900-1984. Psychological Inquiry, 1(1), 52-61.